Welp, this just got interesting. This being Joe Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court. Specifically, Jackson’s “long history” of letting pedophiles “off the hook.”

As reported by Fox News, Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley on Wednesday posted a troubling Twitter thread containing multiple examples demonstrating Jackson’s “alarming” pattern of lenient treatment of sex offenders convicted of preying on children. In one tweet, Hawley said Jackson has been advocating for leniency for child sex offenders since she was in law school.

Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker. She’s been advocating for it since law school. This goes beyond ‘soft on crime.’ I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children.

The first and most obvious question is if Josh Hawley’s office could gain access to Jackson’s troubling records, could not the Biden White House have done the same?

The second most obvious question, assuming the answer to the first question is “yes,” is if Team Biden did see the same information on Jackson’s background (of course they saw it) then why in the hell was this woman nominated? The question is rhetorical, of course; we know damn well why she was Biden’s pick.

Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker. She’s been advocating for it since law school. This goes beyond “soft on crime.” I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 16, 2022

In another tweet, Hawley cited an excerpt from one of Jackson’s law school writings in which she argued sex offender status can lead to “stigmatization and ostracism” and that public policy is driven by a “climate of fear, hatred, and revenge” against sex offenders.

In the current climate of fear, hatred, and revenge associated with the release of convicted sex offenders, courts must be especially attentive to legislative enactments that “use[ ] public health and safety rhetoric to justify procedures that are, in essence, punishment and detention.

Stop the bus. Why hell yes the use of punishment and detention is justified in the defense of public health and safety. Child sex crime recidivism rates alone make a mockery of Jackson’s argument. Yet she worries about stigmatism and ostracism of arguably the most despicable category of criminals on the planet.

As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders – saying it leads to “stigmatization and ostracism.” She’s suggested public policy is driven by a “climate of fear, hatred & revenge” against sex offenders pic.twitter.com/2QUcPOnWPR

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 16, 2022

“It gets worse,” Hawley wrote — and this is disgusting:

It gets worse. As a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson advocated for drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn.

Raise your hands — how many think Jackson advocated for the elimination of a mandatory minimum sentence for child porn so liberal activist judges would have the option of imposing zero sentences?

It gets worse. As a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson advocated for drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 16, 2022

As noted by Fox, Hawley explained that during a February 2012 Sentencing Commission hearing, Jackson suggested to a witness that some child pornography offenders were “less serious offenders” because they engaged in child pornography due to motivations that weren’t sexual but rather an attempt to be part of a group.

That is insane. I don’t want to bust out the infamous Hillaryism, here, but what the hell difference does it make why a deviant gets off on looking at naked pictures of children vs. the fact that he or she gets off on looking at naked pictures of children? Why do I have a not-all-that-sneaking feeling that Jackson would also push for the application of the same twisted “logic” on criminals convicted of other serious crimes?

Hawley tweeted multiple examples of Jackson’s pattern, all of which were disturbing. Among them:

In the case of United States v. Hawkins, the sex offender had multiple images of child porn. He was over 18. The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison. Three months.

In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl. The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months. Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months.

In United States v. Cooper, in which the criminal had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog, the Guidelines called for a sentence of 151-188 months. Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law.

In United States v. Downs, the perp posted multiple images to an anonymous instant messaging app, including an image of a child under the age of 5. The Guidelines recommended 70-87 months. Judge Jackson gave him the lowest sentence allowed by law, 60 months

In United States v. Sears, the sex offender distributed more than 102 child porn videos. He also sent lewd pictures of his own 10-year-old daughter. The Guidelines recommended 97-121 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave him 71 months.

Near the end of the thread, Hawley said what every decent human being — irrespective of politics — reading this article should be thinking if not screaming out loud:

This is a disturbing record for any judge, but especially one nominated to the highest court in the land. Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn’t be up for debate. Sending child predators to jail shouldn’t be controversial.

Nor should keeping them in jail based on minimum sentencing requirements vs. left-wing activist judges.

This is a disturbing record for any judge, but especially one nominated to the highest court in the land. Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn’t be up for debate. Sending child predators to jail shouldn’t be controversial.

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 16, 2022

Yet Joe Biden and his handlers either: a) missed “all of the above” (not a chance); or, b) didn’t give a damn after reading about every one of these cases and more.

After all, there were only two priority boxes to check in determining Joe’s selection. And Ketanji Brown Jackson checked them both. With flying colors.

Interesting, isn’t it, how the “Party of the Children” seems to favor everyone but?

Related on RedState 

Biden Supreme Court Nominee Decisions Reversed for ‘Judicial Overreach’ and Other Troubling Facts

BREAKING: Biden Announces His Supreme Court Pick, and Lindsey Graham Is Mad